Mediolanum

There were at least four towns in Western Europe that were called Mediolanum in Antiquity. The most important of these is the Mediolanum in northwestern Italy that is now known as Milano in Italian, i.e. Milan. Other towns called Mediolanum were: Mediolanum Santonum (“Mediolanum of the Santones”), which is modern Saintes in western France; Mediolanum Aulercorum (“Mediolanum of the Aulerci”), which is modern Evreux in northern France; and a Mediolanum in what is now England on the site of Whitchurch in Shropshire.

The origin of the name Mediolanum is undoubtedly Celtic (all four towns called Mediolanum were in Celtic territories that were conquered by the Romans). The Celtic form of the name was most certainly Mediolanon but beyond this the etymology is considered uncertain. Two possible etymologies that are sometimes given are:

  • *medjo– “middle” + *lanon “enclosure” – the second element being considered a cognate of Welsh llan, which can mean “yard, churchyard, enclosure”. The big problem with this is that the n was originally double, as can be seen in the plural llannau, as well as the Breton cognate lann (plural lannoù).  The Welsh llan and Breton lann actually come from *landā which is cognate with Germanic *landą “land”. That being said, I consider the possibility of a Celtic *lanon meaning “enclosure” quite doubtful.
  • *medjo– “middle” + *lānon < *φlānon “plain” – the second element in this case being considered a cognate of Latin plānum. Although it is certainly not impossible that Celtic had an exact cognate of the Latin word with the same meaning, I consider it unlikely that Celtic had a word for “plain” which was virtually identical to their word for “full” – *φlānos (cf. Welsh llawn, Breton leun). I suppose that one might imagine that Mediolanum meant “Middle Full(ness)”, but I’m really not keen on that possibility myself. [Added on August 18, 2022] It has recently occurred to me that the decisive argument against relating *-lānon with Latin plānus is the fact that the cognate of Latin plānus (< *plh2t-nos) is actually Proto-Celtic *φlitanos (< *pḷth2-nos). See the entry for platno with etymological information in my Indo-European conlang called Woks Teuteka (https://vellaunos.ca/2021/08/02/woks-teuteko/).

The etymology for Mediolanon that I personally fancy is this:

  • *medjolo- “middle, centre” + *-ānon – the first element in this etymology being a noun *medjolon derived from *medjos “mid-” which is cognate with Germanic *midilą (< *midja– + *-la-) “middle”. The second element is the neuter of an adjectival ending *-ānos making *medjolānos “central”. The name Mediolanon would quite simply mean “(The) Central (One)”.

Vellaunos

The username that I chose for this blog – vellaunos – is a rendering of a name of a Celtic Deity, more usually rendered as Vellaunus. This name appears on two inscriptions, one in Britain (Wales) and the other in southern Gaul. In the first inscription, the compound name Ocelus Vellaunus appears as an alternate name of Mars Lenus. In the second inscription, the God Mercury is surnamed “(the) Victor Macniacus Vellaunus”.

The name also appears as part of the name of the Celtic Goddess Icovellauna; as part of the name of the British ruler Cassivellaunus (Welsh Caswallawn) who famously confronted Caesar in 54 BC; and as part of the name of the Catuvellauni tribe of Britain which may have been led by Cassivellaunus and was definitely led by the famous British king Cunobelinus (rendered as Cymbeline by Shakespeare).

The name of the God Vellaunus – *Wellaunos in Celtic – has been compared to the Old Irish follamnaigid ‘rule’ which is derived from *wollamnagje/o– (the change of –mn– to –un– is usual in Celtic, and in Brittonic as well, but is not found in Gaelic). The name of the God would therefore mean “Ruler”. Here are some further etymological connections that I came up with many years ago:

Celtic *wellaunos < *wellamnos < *werl-ṃnos “ruler”; Germanic *weruldiz (Old Saxon werold, worold & Old English weorold, worold, woruld > English world) < *werḷ-tis “dominion” (not *weraldiz < *weraz + *aldiz i.e. “man-age”); Greek Hellēnes “Greeks” < *wellānes < *wellamn– < *werl-ṃn– “rulers”; Sanskrit Varuṇa < *werl-ṃnos “ruler” (Varuṇa being the original supreme God in the Indo-Aryan (Vedic) religion).

All these terms are derived from a Proto-Indo-European root *werl– which apparently meant “rule, command”. I have wondered if this *werl– was not somehow connected with the root *welh1– “choose, want” which is reflected in words like Latin velle (volō) “wish, want” and English will (from Proto-Germanic *wiljô, *wiljaną) – “to rule/command” being essentially “to impose one’s will/wishes” on others. I might even suggest that the root *welh1– was really *werl– (which usually became *well-)…

[NB: The name of the Greek God Ouranos is usually considered to be cognate with Sanskrit Varuṇa. But in fact, Ouranos is from *osuranos, a derivative of *onsuros which became asura in Sanskrit and ahura in Avestan (*onsuros in turn being a derivative of *onsus which became *ansuz in Germanic (Old English ōs “a God” found in names such as Oscar and Oswald, and Old Norse Áss “a God” (plural Æsir “The Gods”). See https://vellaunos.ca/2021/12/23/the-reflexes-of-proto-indo-european-h1ensus-h1onsus-and-h1onsuros/ ]

Plural Personal Pronouns in Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Celtic

I was working on the demonstratives and articles for my Vindonian language one day. I eventually shifted to the personal pronouns and the possessives. As I thought about these, I decided it might be useful to make my own reconstructions of the Proto-Indo-European 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns and the plural demonstratives (i.e. 3rd person plural pronouns). These are given in the following table along with their Proto-Celtic reflexes:

                                    PIE pronouns                                       PC pronouns

                                    nom                 acc                               nom                 acc

1pl incl                        hnes               hnṇs (hṇs)                 snīs                  ans

1pl excl                      wejes               wejṇs                           —                      —

2pl                               juhes                juhṇs                           swīs                 was

3pl                               hejes                hejṇs                            ijes                   ijas

(Of course, the h’s in the PIE forms stand for laryngeals, but without the usual subscript numerals. The 1pl incl forms are usually not reconstructed with an initial laryngeal, but I think the accusative form should require it. The laryngeal in the 2pl forms are apparently undefined. But the larygneal in the 3pl forms was most probably h1.)

Perhaps I should explain the changes between PIE and PC in nominative forms of the 1st and 2nd persons:

1pl          hnes      >             nes         >             nēs         >             nīs          >             snīs

2pl          juhes     >             (i)wes    >             wēs        >             wīs         >             swīs

The lengthening of the vowels is paralleled in Latin (nōs, vōs). By the way, the addition of the initial s in both forms is unique to the Celtic languages.

Although the accusative forms of the PC pronouns aren’t found in Celtoid, the Old Irish possessives ar ‘our’ and for ‘your’ come from *ans-ros and *was-ros which are derived from the accusative forms of the personal pronouns (as also in Latin and in Germanic).

I should also point out that I believe that there was originally clusivity in the 1st person plural pronouns in PIE but that this was eventually lost somewhere along the way. This inclusive/exclusive distinction in 1st person plural pronouns is found in many languages in several language groups. Clusivity in PIE would obviously account for the two morphologically irreconcilable 1st person plural forms shown in the table above. I might speculate that the exclusive form (*wejes) is related to the *wi– prefix which denoted separation/apartness in PIE.

Proto-Celtic ītselos

One of the more idiotic etymologies regularly given by linguistic experts is the one for the usual Celtoid word for “low”. This word appears as izel in Breton, as isel in Welsh and as ísel in Old Irish. (A Celtic (i.e. “Gaulish”) cognate has apparently not yet been found, but it would most certainly have been *īsselos/*ītselos.)

The immediate origin for these words is obviously Proto-Celtic *ītselos. But beyond this, the linguistic experts imagine that this Proto-Celtic *ītselos is derived from the Proto-Indo-European locative plural of the word for “foot” – *pōts – which would have been *petsu and which meant “at the feet” (in which case the Proto-Celtic would presumably have been *φītselos).

This etymology is not entirely devoid of sense, but I consider it quite ridiculous. It’s really just silly, not to mention phonetically impossible – there is no way that a long i can result from a reflex of *petsu.

The important cognate of Proto-Celtic *ītselos that the linguistic experts routinely disregard is Latin īnferus “lower” (the source of English inferior). Latin īnferus is always considered to be a cognate of Proto-Germanic *underaz (> English under) and Sanskrit adhara, but these terms are from an original *h1ṇdher-, a form that cannot have produced the long ī in the Latin word, nor can it have produced the medial f. The exact reflex of PIE *h1ṇdher– in Latin would have been **enderus.

[By the way, the Celtic language (usually called “Gaulish”) had an exact cognate of Proto-Germanic *underaz and Sanskrit adhara, this appearing as anderon on the inscribed lead tablet found at Chamalières. A related Celtic andernados appears on the inscribed lead tablet found at Larzac. Celtic anderos possibly meant “under” or “nether”, although I consider it equally possible that it meant “original” or “primeval”…]

The existence of f in the middle of a non-compound Latin word is very peculiar, and it has had a few people scratching their heads. The f sound that appears at the beginning of many Latin words usually comes from original bh and dh, but these voiced aspirates normally became b and d in the middle of Latin words. For this reason, a hypothetical Pre-Proto-Italic *īndheros would normally have become **īnderus in Latin rather than īnferus. So there was something special in the proto-form of this word that caused the f sound to develop in medial position.

In my view, this peculiar medial f sound is the result of a dh being immediately followed by an s, as in a possible Pre-Proto-Italic *īndh-s-eros. In my opinion, the following s influenced the development of f from dh in a medial position. And this Pre-Proto-Italic *īndh-s-eros would nearly correspond to a possible Pre-Proto-Celtic *īndh-s-elos which would have become Proto-Celtic *īntselos, and which would have lost the n at some point for some reason, yielding Proto-Celtic *ītselos.

Of course, the *īndh– element in the possible Pre-Proto-Celtic *īndh-s-elos and Pre-Proto-Italic *īndh-s-eros would be related to the *h1ṇdh– element in the *h1ṇdher– that became English under and Sanskrit adhara. But the existence of the long i in the former must necessarily indicate two different forms.

On Proto-Celtic [ei]

It is usual to find Proto-Celtic reconstructions in Wiktionary that assume that PIE [ei] became [ē] in Proto-Celtic. I don’t know who came up with this (Matasović?) or why, but I must strongly disagree.

There is evidence that [ei] became [ē] in Gaulish (probably late Gaulish), an apparent instance of this being deuo– ‘god’, i.e. dēuo– from *deiwos. But I hope this isn’t the basis for assuming that [ei] had already become [ē] in Proto-Celtic. This would be like saying that Latin must have had the [ø] sound because French has it, which would obviously be absurd.

It may also be that [ei] became [ē] at some stage in Proto-Goidelic. This [ē] would have shifted to [ea] and then to [ia] as is seen in Old Irish (written ía): e.g. OIr íasc ‘fish’ from *eiskos (< *φeiskos < *peiskos). But note that the [ē] (written é) remained in contexts where i-affection inhibited the shift: e.g. OIr éisc, genitive singular and nominative plural of íasc, both from *eiskī; also OIr léicid ‘to leave’ from *leikwī– (not *linkwī-; cf. PGmc *līhwaną < *leikw-). The [ē] in Proto-Goidelic obviously came from [ei] but this development occurred in Proto-Goidelic, not in Proto-Celtic.

The Brittonic languages give strong evidence that [ei] did not in fact become [ē] in Proto-Celtic. The reflex of PIE [ei] in Brittonic was [ui] as represented in Welsh by wy and in Breton by oue. It is quite unlikely that [ui] could have developed from [ē]. Much more likely is the following transition: Proto-Celtic [ei] > [oi] > [ui].

By the way, this resembles the development of Old French [ei] into Modern French [wa] : [ei] > [oi] > [oe] > [we] > [wa] with a shift from falling to rising during the [oe] stage (although this development occurred later than the aforementioned Brittonic  development).

I might also mention just for interest’s sake that PIE [ejV] (where V stands for any vowel) became [ijV] in Proto-Celtic. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that PIE [ei] became Proto-Celtic [ē] (but it didn’t happen).

For what it’s worth, my Vindonian language has the following development of Proto-Celtic [ei]: [ei] > [ē] > [ie] with a shift from falling to rising during the [ē] stage. The Vindonian word for “food” is bied which may be compared with Welsh bwyd and Breton boued, all of these being from Proto-Celtic *beiton (not *bēton).

The Route of My Fathers

The map above represents the route that my forefathers generally travelled between c5000 BC and c2000 BC. (By “forefathers”, I mean my patrilineal ancestors exclusively.) In terms of successive Y-DNA haplogroups, the following sequence of clades evolved along this route: R1b-P297 > R1b-M269 > R1b-L23 > R1b-L51 > R1b-L151 > R1b-P312 > R1b-L21.

A few years ago, I found out through testing done by 23andMe that my Y-DNA haplogroup is R1b-L21. This haplogroup is sometimes referred to as the “Atlanto-Celtic” haplogroup because it is by far the most common Y-DNA haplogroup among speakers of the modern Insular “Celtic” languages which developed along the Atlantic coasts of western Europe.

As far as I know, the earliest definite culture whose male members belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R1b is the Samara Culture which flourished in the area of the Samara bend along the Volga River in eastern Russia around 5000 BC. The particular clade of R1b found in this culture is R1b-P297.

Derived from the Samara Culture, the Khvalynsk [c4900 to c3500 BC] and Repin Cultures represent the westwards expansion of the people of my R1b forefathers through the Pontic Steppe. The culmination of this westward expansion was the great Yamnaya Culture [c3300 to c2600 BC] which spanned from the southern Ural Mountains in the east to the Carpathian Mountains in the west. The prevailing Y-DNA haplogroups in the Khvalynsk, Repin and Yamnaya Cultures were R1b-M269 and R1b-L23.

Further westward expansions from the Pontic Steppe during the first half of the third millenium BC brought my Yamnaya forefathers up the Danube River valley into central Europe. By the middle of the third millennium BC, the people of my R1b forefathers encountered the people of the Corded Ware Culture in what is now southern Germany. By this time, the R1b-L51 clade had appeared.

As the people of my R1b ancestors expanded westwards across the Pontic Steppe, their R1a relatives also expanded westwards through the forested zone immediately north of the steppes (through what are now the Russian heartland and Belarus). Arriving in central Europe via what is now Poland, they were at least partly responsible for the appearance of the Corded Ware Culture [c2900 to c2350 BC]. This culture and its derivatives (Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo-Balanovo) quickly expanded eastwards among the R1a folks, ultimately contributing to the appearance of the Abashevo Culture [c2500 to c1900] in the region of the Volga River which in turn contributed to the development of the Sintashta Culture (Indo-Iranians) and the Srubnaya Culture (Cimmerians).

Largely contemporaneous with the Corded Ware Culture was the somewhat-enigmatic Bell Beaker Culture [c2800 to c2300 BC]. The origins of this culture are disputed – it may have originated in Iberia – but it extended over most of western Europe and much of central Europe, overlapping considerably with the Corded Ware Culture in central Europe.

When the people of my R1b forefathers moved up the Danube River valley into central Europe towards the middle of the third millennium BC, they seemingly adopted the Bell Beaker Culture. Some of these Bell Beaker R1b-L51 folks subsequently expanded further northwards and mixed with the R1a people of the Corded Ware Culture in north-central Europe, thereby forming the basis of the Germanic peoples (among whom the R1b-U106 clade eventually developed).

The R1b-P312 clade eventually developed among the Bell Beaker R1b-L51 folk who remained in central Europe. Some of these R1b-P312 folks subsequently migrated with the Beaker Culture into northwestern Europe (the Low Countries, northern France, Great Britain, Ireland). Soon thereafter, the R1b-L21 subclade appeared among these R1b-P312 folk of northwestern Europe. Meanwhile, the R1b-U152 subclade appeared among the central European R1b-P312 folk, as well as the Unetice Culture [c2300 to c1600].

It is my view that the separation between “Celtic” and “Celtoid” that I wrote about in my article “Celtic and Celtoid” – https://vellaunos.ca/2021/03/26/celtic-and-celtoid/ – coincides with the separation between the two major subclades of R1b-P312, namely R1b-U152 (“Celtic”) and R1b-L21 (“Celtoid”). In this view, the successive cultures in Central Europe from the Unetice Culture onwards – including the Tumulus Culture [c1600 to c1200 BC], the Urnfield Culture [c1300 to c750 BC], the Hallstatt Culture [c800 to c450 BC] and the La Tène Culture [c450 BC to Roman conquests] – were all Celtic cultures, while the Celtoid peoples were part of the distinctly separate Atlantic Bronze Age [c1300 to c700 BC].

(R1b-U152 is said to be “Italo-Celtic” but I am calling it “Celtic” with respect to the cultures of central Europe because of my opinion that the Italic peoples were established quite apart from the central European Celts in an area including Hungary, Croatia and northern Serbia, from where they eventually migrated into Italy.)

After migrating westwards through the Pontic Steppe from eastern Russia, and migrating up the Danube River valley into central Europe, my forefathers finally migrated into northwestern Europe somewhere around 2000 BC and they remained in this region for over three and a half millennia, until one of them decided to venture out over the ocean and settle in a new world…

By the way, here’s a very good web page about Haplogroup R1b: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml

And here’s a remarkable “Prehistory Atlas” showing the movements and distributions of various cultures in the Old World throughout prehistory up to the Middle Ages: https://indo-european.eu/maps/

(By clicking on each map on the main page, you arrive on the page for that particular time period on which you can access the full map as well as maps showing the location of sites where Y-DNA and mtDna have been identified.)

A Cladogram of the Celtic and Celtoid Languages

The cladogram above represents my understanding of the development and relationships of the Celtic and Celtoid languages. A few comments on this…

I have indicated four distinct Continental Celtic languages (Gaulish, Cisalpine Gaulish, Belgic and Galatian), but these may have been dialects of a single language rather than distinct languages. There is simply not enough evidence to know for sure.

You won’t find Lepontic in this cladogram because I don’t believe that Lepontic was a Celtic language. Although I have thought of it as an Osco-Umbrian language, I now prefer to think it might have been an Illyric language.

The grey branch labeled “Vindonian” represents a Continental Celtoid conlang that I have been developing. Vindonian would hypothetically have been spoken among the Celtoid peoples that lived in northwestern France before the westward expansions of Celtic from Central Europe, and would be the sister language of the Brittonic and Goidelic languages.

Celtic and Celtoid

In recent years, certain eminent authorities have advanced the theory that the “Celtic” language developed in the Atlantic region of Western Europe and subsequently spread eastwards. This theory is opposed to the generally held view that the Celtic language developed in Central Europe and expanded from there.

The latter view is entirely correct, but the other view is not entirely wrong. In fact, the Atlantic region of Western Europe was the area in which the Celtoid (rather than Celtic) language developed.

My view is that the Insular “Celtic” languages are an offshoot of Celtic rather than being Celtic; I use the term Celtoid rather than Celtic for these Insular “Celtic” languages. Given the eccentric particularities of the Celtoid languages (VSO word order, initial consonant mutations, conjugated prepositions, etc.) which are not found in any other Indo-European language, it is simply bizarre to believe that these languages could belong in the same group as the Celtic language which was centered in Central Europe between the relatively typical Indo-European Italic and Germanic languages.

Some researchers have tried their best to prove some kind of linguistic unity between Celtic and the Celtoid languages, even going so far as to find Insular “Celtic” features in Gaulish texts that no one really understands properly. I can understand that this mission is dear to the hearts (for some reason), but it’s wrong.

Speaking of a lack of unity, comparing Gaelic and Brittonic reveals many more differences than similarities, particularly in terms of vocabulary. Surely these two can’t equally be derived from Proto-Celtic in the same way that East Germanic, North Germanic and West Germanic are derived from Proto-Germanic.

By the way, it is important to bear in mind that only the “Continental Celts” were called Celts in Antiquity. No ancient writer ever called the peoples living in the British Isles “Celts”. In fact, it was only in the Early Modern Era that the Gaelic and Brittonic peoples started calling themselves “Celts”.

Here’s how I see the development of the Celtic and Celtoid languages:

The origins of the Celts are in the Yamnaya Culture which dominated the Pontic Steppe between c3300 and c2600 BC. During the latter part of this period, groups of Yamnaya people migrated into the lower Danube River valley and followed the Danube into Central Europe. The establishment of these Yamnaya ancestors of the Celts in Central Europe probably dates to the time of the early Bronze Age Bell Beaker Culture which existed between c2800 and c2300 BC.

The origins of the Bell Beaker Culture are debated, but it covered most of Western and Central Europe. After their arrival in Central Europe, the Yamnaya ancestors of the Celts apparently adopted the Bell Beaker Culture. This adoption of the Bell Beaker Culture marks the beginning of the Celts.

Sometime before 2000 BC, a portion of the earliest Celts of Central Europe migrated westwards. They first migrated into the present-day Netherlands – producing the Hilversum Culture. Further movements westwards brought these earliest Celts into Great Britain – producing the Wessex Culture – and further into Ireland, while others migrated into the Northwest corner of modern France – a region that was called Aremorica (are-mori “by the sea”) two thousand years ago, and which includes Brittany and adjacent areas.

The men among these migrants carried the R1b-P312 Y-DNA haplotype. After their migration, the R1b-L21 haplotype developed among them. This is by far the most common Y-DNA haplotype among modern speakers of the Celtoid languages. Meanwhile, the R1b-U152 Y-DNA haplotype developed among the Celts staying in Central Europe who developed the Unetice Culture (as well as the nearby Italic peoples who were then settled in the area of modern Hungary).

The language that the R1b-L21 folks spoke was originally part of the Proto-Celtic language. But as their language developed among the Atlantic peoples of Western Europe in relative isolation from the Proto-Celtic core territory in Central Europe, it soon diverged significantly from Proto-Celtic. It may well be that the eccentric particularities of the Celtoid language came from the Atlantic peoples of Western Europe among which the R1b-L21 migrants established themselves.

By the middle of the second millennium BC, there were probably two distinct descendants of the Proto-Celtic language: the Celtic language of Central Europe which directly continued Proto-Celtic (successive Tumulus and Urnfield cultures), and the divergent Celtoid language of Western Europe (Atlantic Bronze Age – c1300 to c700 BC). A later offshoot from the Central European Celtic territory (probably during the Urnfield period – c1300 to c750 BC) was the Celtiberian language which established itself in the northwest of Iberia.

The Celtoid language was originally spoken in Aremorica, Great Britain and Ireland, and possibly also in northern France and the Low Countries. It probably also spread southwards up to Gascony, and may even have spread eastwards to some extent, but the Celtoid language on the Continent was probably largely assimilated to the Celtic language as it spread westwards from Central Europe during the Urnfield and Hallstatt periods. Yet, there may have been transitional dialects between Celtic and Celtoid in some areas, especially in Aremorica.

In Great Britain, the influence of Celtic on the Celtoid language during the Hallstatt and LaTène periods (including the kw > p change) produced the Brittonic language. [The change of the kw sound to the p sound in Celtic probably occurred sometime in the first half of the first millennium BC.] This Celtic influence was largely due to the expansion of the Celtic language into southeast Great Britain in the LaTène period. On the other hand, there was little if any influence of the Celtic language on the Celtoid language of Ireland which developed into the Gaelic (or Goidelic) language. This accounts for the important differences between Brittonic and Gaelic.

So, all the modern languages that are called “Celtic” are really Celtoid languages (Gaelic and Brittonic). The Celtic languages, on the other hand, have been extinct for at least one and a half millennia; the last of these probably disappeared by the fifth century AD.

I might add that everything that we call “Celtic culture” in modern times should really be called Celtoid culture, and that much if not most of this culture is a continuation of the cultures of the pre-Celtoid peoples of Atlantic Europe (rather than Indo-European culture).

Light Blue – Celtoid; Dark Blue – Celtic; Medium Blue – P-Celtoid; Blue-gray – Celtiberian; Purple – Italo-Illyrian; Green – Germanic; Yellow- Pre-IE folks

The Development and Movements of Y-Dna Haplogroups in Eurasia

Genetic researchers apparently believe that great genetic diversity within a population in a given area indicates that that area was a point of origin for that population. I strongly disagree. In fact, I believe that this notion has led genetic researchers to interpret the movements of genetic groups in an altogether backwards fashion. An important result of this backwards thinking is the idea that all of the descendants of Y-DNA haplogroup K, including haplogroups N, O and R, originated in eastern or southern Asia. And of course, I have reason to wonder if this isn’t intentional…

The way I see it, great genetic diversity within a population in a given area indicates that that area is a peripheral area rather than a core area. It seems to me that genetic innovations usually occur in core areas and subsequently expand outwards from that core area. This causes all previous genetic groups to move outwards. This results in the genetic innovation dominating the core area, while the periphery becomes increasingly populated by a diverse assortment of genetic groups that had previously existed.

[The following text added on September 29, 2021]

{The observations in the previous two paragraphs relate particularly to the movements of Y-DNA haplogroups; they are not valid with respect to the distribution of mtDNA haplogroups. The reason for this is simply the inherent natural difference between men and women with respect to territoriality.

Males are naturally inclined to expel all unrelated males from their territories, thereby tending to eliminate the possibility of Y-DNA diversity within their territories, and this is just as true on the level of entire haplogroups as on more localized levels (e.g. clans). On the other hand, females are not so inclined to eliminate other mtDNA haplogroups from their territories, thereby allowing for the accumulation of mtDNA diversity.

The natural male propensity to enforce territoriality necessarily means that the existence of Y-DNA diversity in a region must indicate a peripheral area rather than a core area.}

Here is a diagram that attempts to demonstrate the way I see this.

This being said, here are some maps that show how I see the development and movements of the Y-DNA haplogroups in Eurasia.

The following 11 maps represent an attempt at showing the origins and movements of Y-DNA haplogroups in Eurasia. I must stress that these maps are largely my own guesswork. I should also add that Wikipedia was practically the only source of information that I used.

Please note that only the main center of each haplogroup is generally indicated and that expansions from these main centers generally are not indicated.

Also note that haplogroups C, F and H are no longer shown after map 7.

I have attempted to guess approximate dates for these maps. The guess for the first map is approximately 80000 years ago and the guess for the last map is approximately 30000 years ago, the maps in between being at approximately 5000-year intervals.

c80000 BC
c75000 BC
c70000 BC
c65000 BC
c60000 BC
c55000 BC
c50000 BC
c45000 BC
c40000 BC
c35000 BC
c30000 BC

A Cladogram of the Indo-European Language Groups

The cladogram below attempts to show the relationships between the various branches of the Indo-European language family. The relationships shown in this cladogram should be compared with the geographic distributions of Indo-European language groupings between 3000 BCE and 1000 BCE shown on the following page: https://vellaunos.ca/2021/03/24/the-movements-and-expansions-of-indo-european-language-groups/

April 13, 2022 : I have produced a modified version of the cladogram to reflect my current view on the Illyrian & Albanian languages – see https://vellaunos.ca/2022/01/30/illyrians-and-albanians/ I have decided to keep the older version of the cladogram which appears below the newer version.

(Right-click and choose “Open image in new tab” to view full images.)

April 13, 2022 version
Older version